Monday, March 28, 2016

A Tunable Mechanism Determines the Duration of the Transgenerational Adaptations

Tuning the Duration of Directed Adaptations

Organisms adapt to environmental challenges. In fact, many different organisms adapt in non-homologous ways to many different, unforeseen, environments. This contradicts evolution. For we are not talking about random changes occurring by chance, occasionally getting luck enough to confer an adaptation, and then propagating throughout the population. We’re not talking about an evolutionary process of random mutations and natural selection. That would take a long time. What we’re talking about are adaptations that specifically address environmental challenges, and occur in a good fraction of the population, over a few generations, or perhaps within a generation. Such directed adaptation occurs quickly.

That contradicts evolution because random mutations are not going to create such a complicated adaptation capability. Furthermore, they are not going to do this over and over, in so many different species, for so many different environments. And even if, by some miracle, this did occur, it would not be selected. That is because the adaptation capability is not for the current environment the organism faces, but for an unforeseen, hypothetical, future environment. The moment it arises, the adaptation capability is of no use, and would not be selected for.

But that’s not all.

As with Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics, these rapid, directed, adaptations are transgenerational. From parent to offspring, the progeny inherit the adaptation from the progenitor.

So now we must not only believe that evolution’s random mutations constructed these unbelievably detailed, complicated, unique adaptation capabilities, but that evolution also constructed the incredibly complicated means to transmit the adaptations to the next generation. As we saw recently, new research has demonstrated such transgenerational inheritance to be genetic, rather than via the parent’s behavior, breast milk, etc.

So again, random mutations must have created yet another complex design (the ability to pass along adaptations for an unforeseen environmental challenge), and it would have been worthless until that particular environmental challenge arose.

But that’s not all.

New research out of Tel Aviv University explains how these acquired adaptations persist through the later generations. Previously, these inherited adaptations were assumed simply to decay or “peter out” over a few generations. But the new research has uncovered proteins that manage and govern the duration of the adaptations. The adaptations are transmitted by small RNA molecules, and the proteins provide a tunable mechanism to govern the duration of the adaptation, over the generations. As the title of the paper explains:

A Tunable Mechanism Determines the Duration of the Transgenerational Small RNA Inheritance

Again, random mutations are not capable of producing such designs, and the designs would not be selected for. None of this makes any sense on evolution.

So now we must not only believe that evolution’s random mutations constructed these adaptation capabilities, and the means to transmit them to later generations, but also to control precisely their duration.

131 comments:

I want to see a research team take a through-gut creature with a close relative of the closed kind, and see if they can expose them and their progeny to different environments and get their gut systems to switch.

Of course, that would be proof of evolution because... well, they'll figure it out.

"So now we must not only believe that evolution’s random mutations constructed these adaptation capabilities, and the means to transmit them to later generations, but also to control precisely their duration."

Add this to the growing list of Darwinist pipe dreams. Darwin's disciples are desperate and afraid...for good reason.

Cornelius Hunter: What we’re talking about are adaptations that specifically address environmental challenges, and occur in a good fraction of the population, over a few generations, or perhaps within a generation.

Transgenerational adaptation is typical for evolution in silico. Populations and genomes tend to conform to recent history rather than strictly to the present.

The feedback loop is interesting though. Have to take a look at the study.

"So now we must not only believe that evolution’s random mutations constructed these adaptation capabilities, and the means to transmit them to later generations, but also to control precisely their duration."

Well, you know the old saying: "With "evolution", all things are possible (*)"

(*) and if they are possible, then they are plausible; and if they are plausible, then they are probable; and if they are probable, then they are certain;

Doubtless a resounding yes. The Finches first to arrive had all of the necessary code/information to begin with, furthermore already possessing the vast molecular toolkits needed to give rise to the variations to fill the niches. None of this random in the least, more like fully anticipated then realized.

You jackasses have been bullying Christians and other non-atheists for decades, not only in the schools, but also in the mainstream media. You have convinced yourselves that you own science. Your only purpose here is to proselytize for your stupid Church of the Flying Dirt Monster. LOL

Now that I'm giving you a taste of your own medicine, you start whining like toddlers with temper tantrums. Grow up, you dirt worshipping, small-cranium, tree-dwelling primitive.

This is coming from the dirt worshipper who loves to call critics of his cretinous Church of the Flying Dirt Monster "stupid ID/creationists". How precious. And then, after they're done whining here and at Uncommon Descent's site, they go and whine like spoiled brats at antievolution.org.

You mule-headed morons love to dish it out but you can't take it. You are nothing but a bunch of gutless and weak-minded crybabies. You make cargo-cult primitives and watermelons look brilliant.

I know what I am going to post is off-topic, but please excuse me since it has been bothering me for some time. When we point out to evolutionists that the evolution of something like a protein is unlikely, the standard answer is that it didn't evolve from scratch, but rather from a homologous protein. But that just pushed the problem back one step. Where did that ancestral protein come from? The obvious response is from another protein. But where did that come from? We can't have an infinite regression of proteins. There had to be a beginning. But evolutionists then say that the problem of beginnings is not their problem, that's abiogenesis. But evolution depends on abiogenesis to get things started. And evolutionists depend on abiogenesis to get around the problem of a infinite regression of proteins. So the problem of origins most certainly is their problem.

natschuster: But evolutionists then say that the problem of beginnings is not their problem, that's abiogenesis.

You seem to be conflating two different notions. The origin of life is certainly an important unanswered question in biology. While the Theory of Evolution is strongly supported by a wide variety of evidence concerning the diversification of life, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass the origin of life. For comparison, Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation explains the movement of the planets without explaining the origin of the planets.

natschuster: Where did that ancestral protein come from?

No one knows, however, we do know that even short peptides can have important biological functions, while functional proteins are not that rare in sequence space. That isn't considered the hard problem concerning the origin of life. The hard problem, the yet unanswered question, is where the first replicator came from.

The origin of life is certainly an important unanswered question in biology.LOL. It is unanswered only to a dirt worshipper. It is obvious to all thinking people that life did not spring up spontaneously by natural means. Only the dirt worshipping members of the Cretinous Church of the Flying Dirt Monster continue to claim that dirt is the mother of life.

You people need to evolve some brain cells to add the two neurons between your ears. And grow some gonads, too, while you're at it.

"The hard problem, the yet unanswered question, is where the first replicator came from."

No, Zachriel, that is not the real problem. The really big problem is how did the first living organism originate. Evolutionists have a tendency to just wave their hands at the question and say it is not really important. However, worrying about the first replicator is pointless until you can explain how life originated.

As for Louis and his derogatory style, maybe if we just ignore him he will go away.

No, Zachriel, that is not the real problem. The really big problem is how did the first living organism originate. Evolutionists have a tendency to just wave their hands at the question and say it is not really important. However, worrying about the first replicator is pointless until you can explain how life originated.

Nic, do we have to know the origin of atoms to understand how chemistry works?

But even if the problem of the first replicator was solved, it wouldn't solve the problem protein evolution since replicators replicate, not make proteins. So you need another explanation for the origin of proteins to avoid the problem of an infinite regression of proteins.

And I'm not conflating protein evolution and abiogenesis. It's evolutionist who are making one of them dependent on the other.

natschuster: The really big problem is how did the first living organism originate.

Um, we referred to the first replicator, that is, the first entity capable of self-reproduction. That might have been what you call an organism. In other words, you seem to be disagreeing just to disagree.

natschuster: Evolutionists have a tendency to just wave their hands at the question and say it is not really important.

We said just the opposite.

Bill Cole: Can you quantify this?

There were two statements.

On peptides:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide#Peptides_in_molecular_biology

ZachielThanks for the paper.The paper concludes that 10^11 of randomly sequenced proteins can bind ATP. How do you think this supports RMNS as the mechanism driven large scale changes? Based on this how would I build a bacterial flagellum with about 50 unique proteins that need to fit together with charge and shape?

Bill Cole: How do you think this supports RMNS as the mechanism driven large scale changes?

It doesn't. The question was the origin of the "ancestral protein". The experiment shows the minimum density of functional proteins, so given an environment rich in amino acids and peptides, the origin of simple proteins is within the bounds of probability.

Bill Cole: Based on this how would I build a bacterial flagellum with about 50 unique proteins that need to fit together with charge and shape?

Not sure how you would build it, but evolution worked by accumulation of changes. For instance, if the flagellum evolved from an ion pump, then the problem is already smaller.

But you still need proteins with the RNA. So the problem of Protein origins remains unsolved so turning the question of protein evolution into a question of protein origins seems to me to be a little bogus.

The business end of the ribosome, the part that makes peptide bonds, is RNA, which is what led to the hypothesis of RNA World. You can remove most of the proteins in a ribosome, and the remaining RNA can still form peptide bonds. Furthermore, artificial ribozymes can form peptide bonds. See Zhang & Cech, Peptide bond formation by in vitro selected ribozymes, Nature 1997. (Cech won the Nobel Prize, along with Sidney Altman, for the discovery of the catalytic properties of RNA.)

The bigger problem is why, in the present-day ostensibly salubrious environment, there is no abiogenesis occurring more or less regularly? Or better yet, since life is seemingly ubiquitous, why any experimenter could not easily replicate this event.

Of course abiogenesis occurring at random intervals would likely destroy all life on the planet in short order. Just speculating.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've used the wrong name when replying.

As for the question, I did answer it. No, you don't need to know the origin of atoms to understand chemistry. However, understanding the origin of life does require you to understand how those chemicals came to be alive.

We used the planetary movement example. You don't have to understand the origin of atoms to understand how atoms behave. And you don't have to understand the origin of planets to understand how planets behave.

the problem is that when we point out that the evolution of single protein is unlikely, since you need to get hundreds of amino acids into a very specific configuration, they answer by saying it isn't all that unlikely, since they might have evolved from homologous proteins. But where did those homologous proteins come from? We can't have an infinite regression of proteins. So the standards answer is that this is an origins question, not an evolutionary one. See, the orbits of planets doesn't depend on the origin of planets. But the evolution of proteins now depends on the origin of proteins.

We can trace the history of proteins, but the deep past is still a mystery. However, we know that short peptides can have biological function, and foldable proteins are not that rare in sequence space. So, while the actual history is obscure, there doesn't seem to be any probabilistic barrier to their origin.

natschuster: But the evolution of proteins now depends on the origin of proteins.

No. The evolution of proteins does not depend on their origin. We can observe the evolution of proteins and infer much of their history, all without solving the riddle of their origin.

In this case, it means it has a specific catalytic activity, such as binding.

natschuster: And organisms need the right kind of proteins, don't they?

Sure, but primordial life won't initial be working with complex proteins complexes, but simple peptides.

natschuster: And it just seems like cheating to me to push the evolution question back to an origin question.

The Theory of Evolution only explains how life evolves. It would be great if it could also explain the origin of life, but it doesn't. However, evolutionary processes are known to be able to bring about increasing complexity in organisms, and we have evidence that all life evolved from common ancestors. There's a so-called singularity which is beyond the scope of the Theory of Evolution, but is certainly an important question in biology.

natschuster: Evolutionists always tell me that design is cheating.

Again, we have evidence of common ancestry, and evidence that complex adaptation occurs through evolutionary processes. We don't know how life began, but once it did, then evolution took over.

Sorry, but TOE does NOT explain anything resembling life in this biosphere. Not even remotely. They say to does (dogmatically), or say it will eventually. But so far anything I have ever heard postulating a plausible explanation of how some kind of proto self-replicating random molecular machines became blue whales and everything needed to support them is the epitome of hubris and frankly embarrassing. Everybody knows they are nowhere near a complete theory. And if they did the complete explanation would fill every hard drive on the planet. TOE sounds to me like a one-liner when we really need the full encyclopedia brittanica.

But understanding the evolution that occurred in the 3.5+ billion years after that doesn't require it.

Of course it does. The intractable problem of the evolution-killing combinatorial explosion is the same problem of the origin of life.

You're worshipping dirt from beginning to end. It's a single problem. And it does not get better as you go along. It gets worse. But talking to the deeply religious is like talking to watermelons. This is why you deserved to be insulted. Continually.

Damn it, Louis, can you not provide a respectful comment for once in your life? Your first paragraph was fine, why do you deem it necessary to add all the drivel. I don't care how much you dislike evolutionary thought ghostrider, et al deserve to be treated respectfully. Quit being a child and act like a man for a change.

"Never. Not to dirt worshippers. They deserve nothing but contempt, insults and ridicule."

No, Louis, they do not. They are souls for whom Christ died as you and I are. The fact they believe in something other than we do does not make them fair game for contempt and ridicule. Christ would not treat them that way and if you profess to follow him, neither should you.

It is my hope that by interacting with ghostrider, William, et al I may succeed in having them look at some alternatives. That will not be accomplished by treating them with contempt and ridicule.

I would be willing to bet that if I was to meet with any of these guys we would have a great time interacting. I do not wish to make these people my enemy, nor should you, it accomplishes nothing.

"I'm a bigger man than you."

What makes you such a big man, Louis? You're ability to hurl insults perhaps? Or is it your aptitude for nastiness? Exactly what makes you such a big man?

Actually, I see you as someone who suffers from inferiority problems and you feel the need to vent your anger somewhere. It would appear you see this as a safe place to do that.

If that is the case, please find somewhere else to do so, I am really tired of listening to it.

Mapou: "PS. Do not accuse me of being a child, alright. I'm a bigger man than you. I got gonads that you don't have."

You are one sick individual. Nic and people like him are the reason that I have respect for most Christians. They treat others as Jesus asks them to. And Jesus, even though I don't believe that he was the son of God, was a very insightful person with many good suggestions on how to lead your life. In short, Nic walks the walk. You are the dog feces that he occasionally has to walk through.

Cornelius, I really don't understand you. I think that you try to be honest but you delete one of my comments because I stated that YECs are either willfully ignorant or moronically stupid (a claim that can be supported by the evidence), yet you continue to allow Mapou to post his obscenity laden rants without even commenting on it.

I like your blog because it raises some interesting ideas. But when you condone (approve?) the behaviour of Mapou, you will simply end up with another echo chamber like the mess that is UD. Which, by the way, even the most sense among us, can see is Mapou's motive.

I had hoped that you were better than the ambulance chasing lawyer that runs UD. Maybe I was wrong.

Cornelius, just a follow-on from my last comment. Even UD has had enough of Mapou's abusivenesd and banned him.

I am not one that supports banning people simply because of their views. But when the are abusive, they should be provided with a caution from the moderator. And if they refuse to correct their behaviour, banning is an appropriate last resort. But this is your site, so you can run it as you seem fit.

"Which, by the way, even the most sense among us, can see is Mapou's motive."

The best thing you can do with Louis is not let him have his way. Just keep posting and we will have decent respectful conversations; with the occasional jab at each other's intelligence; and simply ignore his childishness.

"I stated that YECs are either willfully ignorant or moronically stupid (a claim that can be supported by the evidence),..."

That's interesting because the evidence is exactly what changed my mind.

Nic, I have never asked, but are you a YEC? Because I would love to discuss the evidence (lack) for it if you are willing.

I would agree with you about Mapou if the moderation here was serious about having an open and honest discussion. Because a fair moderator would at least caution Mapou to give him the chance to calm down.

I could accept that Cornelius is a busy man and doesn't have time to monitor his blog all of the time. But This can't be reconciled with the fact that I had a comment quickly deleted that was tame compared to the comments that Mapou posts. And the only difference was that it was anti creationist.

Cornelius probably got more huevos than all of you crybabies combined. I'm sure he'll make his decision based on his own priorities, not that of a bunch of spineless wussies and tree-dwelling primitives. LOL

Cornelius, whatever you decide, I will respect. I have more respect for what you do here than the entire membership of the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster.

I received information that Louis apologizes for all the names he called you and that he'll change his ways from today on....today being April 1st :D

Our American friends like their freedom of speech. You and your atheist friends are dirt worshipers so I don't understand all the big fuss. Atheists have no problem mocking Christians every day. OTOH, I would not call you that if that's offensive to you.

Technically, no. However, working from erroneous assumptions can very much impact the conclusions. The fact that Darwinism requires so many just-so stories and imagined serendipitous events to hold the narrative together is a strong indication it is working from faulty presuppositions.

Nic, I think that you will agree that "just-so stories" is an unsubstantiated meme. Yes, evolution involves the devolopment of hypothetical pathways that have to be followed up with further research. But these hypotheses are based on the evidence available. If further evidence does not support the hypothesis, it is modified or rejected.

Plate tectonics, if we use the same criteria that you use to criticize evolution, would be a just story. As would many other theories in science.

"Nic, I think that you will agree that "just-so stories" is an unsubstantiated meme."

Actually, no, I would not agree it is an unsubstantiated meme. For example the evolutionary explanation of the eye is one huge just-so story from beginning to end.

The hand wave beginning of assuming the existence of a light sensitive patch leading to a multitude of patches which then form a concave structure is rife with 'just-soness.' Simply getting a light sensitive patch is beyond the capabilities of evolution. And cutting what is a very long story short, what good is a light sensitive patch if the information which would allow the possessor of the patch to understand the significance of light from dark is not present?

I have a friend who has been blind from birth. He can distinguish light from dark and understands what they mean but knowing that does nothing for him as far as negotiating his environment is concerned.

The hand wave beginning of assuming the existence of a light sensitive patch leading to a multitude of patches which then form a concave structure is rife with 'just-soness.' Simply getting a light sensitive patch is beyond the capabilities of evolution. And cutting what is a very long story short, what good is a light sensitive patch if the information which would allow the possessor of the patch to understand the significance of light from dark is not present?

Nic, we have extant animals with just a light sensitive patch for an eye. They seem to process the information it provides just fine. Even being able to differentiate between light and shadow can help a creature find food or avoid being eaten.

Nic: "I have a friend who has been blind from birth. He can distinguish light from dark and understands what they mean but knowing that does nothing for him as far as negotiating his environment is concerned."

Are you suggesting that your friend doesn't prefer to be able to distinguish light from dark to not being able to do this? I dated a legally blind girl at university for two years. I can tell you that she would argue that partial sight, regardless of how limited, is better than no sight.

But you are trying to convince me that ID is a better explanation. A theory that has no explanatory or predictive power. We are simply expected to accept that ID, with no proposed mechanism, is a better explanation.

On another note, thank you for your comments with respect to Mapou. I don't expect a "warm" welcome when I post comments here, but his level of vitriole is just pathological. And it is not made any better by the lack of moderator intervention.

"Are you suggesting that your friend doesn't prefer to be able to distinguish light from dark to not being able to do this?"

Someone who is legally blind may have enough vision to distinguish shapes, colours, depth of field, etc. In cases such as that distinguishing light and dark is definitely an asset.

In the case of my friend all he has is the ability to distinguish light from dark. He cannot determine shapes or colours. In navigating through a room it matters not to him if it is light or dark. As such, it is not a matter of preference, it is simply a matter of it being irrelevant.

"A theory that has no explanatory or predictive power."

Design is the explanation. I don't know why people can't grasp that simple idea.

For example, you take a hike through a forest and come to a creek. As there is no other way to cross you step in and walk to the other side. Years later you take the same path and when you come to the creek there is now a small bridge. Obviously you conclude some intelligent agent had traversed the same path and determined the need for a bridge and constructed it. Therefore ID is the explanation for the existence of the bridge and as such ID has explanatory power.

As for the mechanism of ID, that again would be intelligence in combination with the ability to construct what the intelligence can conceive.

Therefore, the bridge in the forest is explained by intelligence and intelligence is the mechanism by which it is constructed.

"I don't expect a "warm" welcome when I post comments here,..."

You're welcome. As for receiving a warm welcome, I always enjoy our jousts so I hope you see that as a warm welcome. Remember, my comments as to intelligence, etc., are always meant in fun and should never be taken to heart.

Design is the explanation. I don't know why people can't grasp that simple idea.

Saying "design" is no more of an explanation than saying "magic!". Both add exactly zero to our understanding of the phenomenon of life. Also "intelligence" doesn't describe a mechanism of construction. Like saying "design" it adds exactly zero to our understanding.

Explanations are suppose to, you know, actually explain the what, when, where, and how questions. Evolution answers all four for a good portion of the natural world. ID-Creationism explains zero point squat.

Remember, my comments as to intelligence, etc., are always meant in fun and should never be taken to heart.

Sometimes it's pretty hard to tell but I'll try to remember that in the future. :)

"Even being able to differentiate between light and shadow can help a creature find food or avoid being eaten."

This is not evidence that evolution is the cause of this ability. It also does not answer the question of the origin of the light sensitive patch. Nor does it explain the origin of the information necessary to process the difference between light and dark and the significance of that difference to the organism.

"There's nothing "just so" about any eye evolution. All plausible steps in eye evolution have been demonstrated."

Making up stories of how an eye could have evolved is not equivalent to demonstrating it actually was the result of evolution. The origin of the eye can be and is better explained as a result of intentional design, just as the existence of a 747 is best explained as the result of intentional design.

Why do evolutionists accept fact of intelligent design for inanimate objects such as a 747 and yet insist living organisms, which are vastly more demanding as far as intelligent input is concerned, arose spontaneously? That, to me, is a very troubling question.

"Saying "design" is no more of an explanation than saying "magic!". Both add exactly zero to our understanding of the phenomenon of life."

Obviously I do not agree. One invokes the term magic to refer to something or event he does not understand and does not expect to ever understand. Design is not at all the same. Design is a concept which is not only clearly understood and easily discernible, but one upon which scientific investigation can be based.

Design concepts allow for testing, observation and repeatability. All factors which are crucial to scientific investigation and all are critical components of design processes. Design and scientific investigation mesh like a hand and glove. Thus, to say design explains no more than does magic is just palpable nonsense.

"Sometimes it's pretty hard to tell but I'll try to remember that in the future. :)"

One invokes the term magic to refer to something or event he does not understand and does not expect to ever understand. Design is not at all the same. Design is a concept which is not only clearly understood and easily discernible, but one upon which scientific investigation can be based.

Saying "design" only becomes better than saying "magic" if you provide some details about the design. When was it done? What manufacturing process was used for the build? How many units in the first production run? Was there one designer or a team working at cross purposes? What other designed objects do you know that change, sometimes significantly, every time a new one is produced?

ID can't answer the questions. ID can't even think of a way to investigate those questions.

For the sake of argument let's say we decide life is designed. What specifically is the next step in investigating? Give me some testable hypotheses.

Making up stories of how an eye could have evolved is not equivalent to demonstrating it actually was the result of evolution

Nothing was made up. All the steps are plausible and inferred from the available empirical evidence.

Suppose you met a man from a desert who had never seen a tree. You're trying to convince him a 300' redwood grew from a tiny seed. How would you do it? You can't wait 500 years for the tree to grow. The answer is you show different trees in various stages of growth - seedling, 1 year, 5 year, 10 year, up to mature. You let him watch a small plant noticeable grow a few mm in a week and explain the process of growth. That's exactly what science does with eye evolution.

What do you do if this guy refuses to accept your scientific evidence and demands to see a whole 300' tree grow from a seed while he watches or else he won't believe it? You're the guy from the desert Nic.

Even a man from the desert will have observed plants growing. Nice try though.

Sorry Nic but yearly flowers and grass are MICRO plant growth which everyone agrees happens. What you are claiming is MACRO plant growth, a tree growing 300' in 500 years which no one has ever observed.

Nic: I can follow the analogy, that's not a problem. The problem is that it is a weak analogy as I have demonstrated by your need to keep altering its parameters.

It's not a weak analogy. You wanted to ignore the argument, so nitpicked about irrelevant details. The person is ignorant of trees. Where do the big trees come from? How can we find out? So try actually responding to the argument.

Nic: Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems to me not that long ago that I got a big LOL from you for talking about historical science.

You're mistaken. Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.

Nic: why did you try to reject my argument about historical documents which could attest to the age of a tree?

Yes, it has been observed to occur with the use of historical records to confirm the existence of particular trees; California Redwoods for example; over multiple hundreds of years.

So, no punt there, question answered.

"No explanation for the KT boundary layer of irridium,..."

Most likely the iridium layer was deposited via repeated volcanic eruptions which can and do produce large amounts of iridium and would disperse it in the manner observed more efficiently than an asteroid impact.

No punt, question answered.

"No explanation for the empirically observed matching phlogenetic trees in the deep time fossil and genetic records."

Except they don't match as nicely as you would like to think. Maybe do a little research on this. Dr. Hunter has discussed it several times.

Most likely the iridium layer was deposited via repeated volcanic eruptions which can and do produce large amounts of iridium and would disperse it in the manner observed more efficiently than an asteroid impact.

Evidence please. Not stuff you made up on the fly. Why no dino fossils above the layer?

Except they don't match as nicely as you would like to think.

Denial of reality and evasion of question noted.

Junk DNA.

What about it? What is the testable hypothesis that derives from the ID position and how can it be falsified?

Nic goes 0 for 4. Punt punt punt punt. So much for his "design" details.

"Which one person has ever seen a seed grow into a 300' high redwood?"

Did I make that claim, or did I simply say people have witnessed trees grow to be very tall and historical resources have provided evidence of trees living for hundreds of years and growing very tall?

I think you know the answer.

"Evidence please. Not stuff you made up on the fly. Why no dino fossils above the layer?"

Look it up. Volcanoes can deposit iridium.

As for the lack of dinosaur fossils above the iridium layer? I don't know. It could be your hypothesis is right, or there could be other explanations. Reality isn't limited by your lack of imagination, remember?

"Denial of reality and evasion of question noted."

Look into it if you don't believe me. You're an intelligent guy, you can do this.

"What about it? What is the testable hypothesis that derives from the ID position and how can it be falsified?"

Evolution posited that the majority of our genome was cluttered with useless, left over DNA from our long journey from pond scum, to pine cones and finally humans. ID showed this to be wrong.

We see micro plant growth but no one has ever seen macro plant growth. Creationist logic!

Volcanoes can deposit iridium.

Geologists can tell the difference between a volcano's output and an Earth impactor. Volcanoes don't produce shocked quartz and tektites. Then there's the little matter of the 66 MYO, 180 km wide crater at Chicxulub.

It could be your hypothesis is right, or there could be other explanations.

Like what?

Look into it if you don't believe me.

I have looked into it. Studied it for years in college and grad school. You're full of BS to claim the phylogenetic tree patterns don't exist.

Evolution posited that the majority of our genome was cluttered with useless, left over DNA from our long journey from pond scum, to pine cones and finally humans. ID showed this to be wrong.

ID showed no such thing. The ENCODE project has retracted their claim 80% of the human "junk" genome is functional; it's closer to 20%. There are other organisms where 99% of their genome is non-functional repeated segments. Where did ID predict that?

Nic: Hardly, I just correctly pointed out someone from the desert would be familiar with plant growth including trees.

Which is irrelevant to the analogy. If you won't take the analogy on its face, then it's probably because you don't understand it, or are uncomfortable confronting it.

Imagine, if you will, someone who has never known a tree. His friend suggests that a redwood tree grows over hundreds of years. What empirical evidence could you garner which could support or refute the hypothesis?

You obviously do not understand the purpose of an analogy. When properly drawing an analogy there should be at least a sense of reality in its content.

"What empirical evidence could you garner which could support or refute the hypothesis?"

You would have to demonstrate over a period of time and observation that trees do indeed grow and can grow very old and very tall. Simply showing him growth rings and saying that proves it is old would hardly be convincing to your fictional character who has no knowledge of trees.

"Then give me your explanation for the matching patterns in the deep time fossil and genetic records."

Such a pattern is not inconsistent with design as the use of functional system can be used in various structures.

Another delusion evolutionists function with is a belief that if organisms were created they must all be completely different in their genetic make-up. That is a fallacious assumption. As such a design scenario is not hampered by genetic and homologous similarities across species lines.

Nic: You obviously do not understand the purpose of an analogy. When properly drawing an analogy there should be at least a sense of reality in its content.

Gee whiz, Nic. There is virtually no reader who doesn't understand the notion of a stranger in a strange land.

Nic: You would have to demonstrate over a period of time and observation that trees do indeed grow and can grow very old and very tall.

How would we "demonstrate" this? If you mean he has to see it happen, then he would conclude it doesn't, because he would never see a seed turn into a 300-foot tall redwood.

Nic: Simply showing him growth rings and saying that proves it is old would hardly be convincing to your fictional character who has no knowledge of trees.

In science, it's a consilience of the evidence that provides confidence in a claim. Looking at a variety of different sized redwood trees, would be fairly convincing. However, looking at their tree rings, perhaps even coring a tree to watch new tree rings form over a few years, would provide support for the hypothesis concerning the specific age.

Nic: Such a pattern is not inconsistent with design as the use of functional system can be used in various structures.

Artifacts rarely produced a singular nested hierarchy.

Nic: Another delusion evolutionists function with is a belief that if organisms were created they must all be completely different in their genetic make-up.

No, they wouldn't all be different, but they would be unlikely, from what we know of designers, to form a nested hierarchy. For instance, we might see griffins, but we don't.

Are you sure that the nested hierarchy of life really holds up all that well? I keep on reading about how DNA gives us conflicting tree. And even at the morphological level, we see lots of overlap, e.g. lizards with placentas. So maybe it looks a lot like designed stuff.

Nic: Making up stories of how an eye could have evolved is not equivalent to demonstrating it actually was the result of evolution

ghostrider: Suppose you met a man from a desert who had never seen a tree...

What you call "making up stories" is called proposing a hypothesis. Then you look for entailments of the hypothesis to either support or contradict the hypothesis. In the case of the stranger in a stranger land, he infers from looking at many trees that they grow over time. By studying tree rings, he can reasonably determine the age of even the oldest tree.

Similarly with evolution. The hypothesis is that, say, tetrapods evolved from fish. An obvious entailment is that there once were fishapods, that is, organisms that had features intermediate between fish and tetrapods.

Sometimes we can find extant intermediates. Other times, as with fishapods, we can predict their placement in the fossil record. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Simply proposing an hypothesis does not lend evidence to a claim. You can hypothesize how an eye could evolve but that is very different from demonstrating it could and did evolve. That is the slip between the cup and the lip. The hypothesis means nothing unless you can proceed to testing and observation, which in this case, and every case involving the evolutionary claims of descent from a common ancestor; be it referring to eyes, wings, whatever; you simply cannot do. That in case you have not yet caught on, is the crux of the argument. Any one can hypothesize about whatever they wish and be as imaginative and as fanciful as they wish. If they cannot take the hypothesis beyond the hypothetical stage it means nothing at all. It is just a 'story.'

"http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/"

Good grief, Zach, are you that out of touch? Tiktaalik is nothing more than an extinct fish. It is not an intermediate, it is simply a dead fish.

TOE requires as many assumptions (practically limitless) as is required at any particular moment. These assumptions are added and deleted on a whim. The same goes for all of these absurd theories of Cosmology. Robust? No way. Outlandish? Sophomoric? Yes.

Then we're in agreement. OOL issues have nothing to do with subsequent evolution.

However, working from erroneous assumptions can very much impact the conclusions.

Now all you have to do to disprove evolutionary theory is list the assumptions you think it relies on then demonstrate those assumptions are erroneous. Creationists have been trying for 150 years with no success. Maybe you'll be the first.

Of course they do. All stochastic search mechanisms (prebiotic soup or RM+NS) face the exact same insurmountable problem: the combinatorial explosion kills them dead before they are even born. I wish the same was true for dirt worshippers. LOL

Creationists or anybody else need to go no further. Your position is that a stupid, gutless and brain-dead dirt worshipper. You, as a member of the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster, are here to proselytize for your stupid religion. Go back to your own dirt worshipping forums and leave the world alone. Maggot.

Louis, I found this on your rebel science website about a passage in the book of Revelation:

"It took me a while but I finally figured out that "two hundred million horsemen" is just a metaphor for the neuronal signals riding on the corpus callosum, the bundle of nerve fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain."

Is this an idea that you still support? (or is it a late April fool's joke - the piece is dated April 8...)

William....spending your entire life reading every peer-reviewed paper ever published is an utterly trivial amount of data. With the expected nonsensical conclusion. In comparison to the actual dataset. Which in terms of quantity is as near to infinite as our limited minds can fathom. Fully describe the simplest living organism and how it fits into the universe, and go from there. Honestly, it's not going to happen till kingdom come. Literally.